Rules Must Bend to Allow McCain, Obama on Texas Ballot with Barr »
Posted By Mdiar 1 year, 2 months ago in News
Atlanta, GA - Though Texas election law sets an Aug. 26 deadline for political parties to file their candidates for president and vice-president, John McCain and Barack Obama must work around the law to get on the ballot alongside Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.
Read Full Story at bobbarr2008.com »
2439 Views Share Story 24 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Mdiar
If you must mount the gallows, give a jest to the crowd, a coin to the hangman, and make the drop with a smile on ...
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 62 (view all)
-
90%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was on another website and I saw a commenter mention this story... so I did a quick Google. My, oh my, now this is an interesting development! Of course, they'll get on the ballot, but its still insane that neither party noticed this little detail when they scheduled their conventions! Particularly the Republicans, who MUST have Texas! If I were Obama, and if I were interested in playing some hard-ball, I'd definitely be taking a look at this right now... along with including various third parties in the debates.
Reply
The main substance of this story is that Texas state law requires that you must be on the ballot by 70 days before the election, which is on November 4th. That deadline was two days ago and only Bob Barr is on the ballot. This is an odd development, indeed.-
86%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is a link with the deadlines, in fact:
Reply
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2008dates.shtml#November
Here is a link with all those on the ballot, to date (two days after the deadline expired):
http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/general/2008gensbs.shtml -
-
-
-
90%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office claims that both parties "filed something" on time, despite the fact that neither party had nominated a candidate by the deadline as required by Texas law.
"We agree that unreasonably early deadlines are absurd," says Verney. "We've run into them in states like Oklahoma, West Virginia and Maine during our fight for ballot access across the nation. But if third parties are required to adhere to the law, then we expect the same for the candidates of any other party. Maybe this will show Republicans and Democrats what it is like to be on the wrong side of ballot access laws."-
50%
amazed1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Absolutely. If they've not jumped through the proper legal hurdles, then they should not be on the ballot.
Reply
I thought the conventions were very late this year -- but I could be wrong. It seems to me as if they pushed them back to avoid conflicting with the Olympics. If that means that they missed the deadlines in some states, then they should have to conduct write in campaigns there as a third party or independent candidate who missed the deadline would have to do.
That would be such a hoot -- and such poetic justice.
Of course, like term limits, it will never happen because the rules are always set up to benefit those who are already in power.
-
-
-
davidhallstromComment removed: Spammer1 Reply
-
92%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I want Barr in the debates. He has really become a true libertarian and has much to contribute to the national debate. Barr is perhaps an honest to goodness actual conservative, something I barely have a recollection of. Can you imagine if it was Barr who needed "help" to get on the ballot? Yes this is an interesting story. Nice find Mdiar.
Reply-
86%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks!
Reply
I'm hoping that this goes to the Courts and we see what the Courts makes of such things. Maybe, in the future, it will be more difficult to deny ballot access to third party candidates due to a Court ruling on this in the Democrats/Republicans favor. -
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
88%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For anyone who may doubt:
Reply
http://law.onecle.com/texas/election/192.031.00.html
192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president of the United States placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if: (1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those offices prescribed by federal law; (2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of: (A) the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president; and (B) the names and residence addresses of presidential elector candidates nominated by the party, in a number equal to the number of presidential electors that federal law allocates to this state; and (3) the party is: (A) required or authorized by Subchapter A of Chapter 172 to make its nominations by primary election; or (B) entitled to have the names of its nominees placed on the general election ballot under Chapter 181. Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 211, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1986. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 864, § 203, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 1109, § 21, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
Now, I do have to question the Constitutionality of such laws. However, I'll let the Courts decide if such things are legal or not and, if not, then they can be shot down when used against third parties in the future using the precedent set.-
67%
lfergie8121 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would be interesting to see how the Supreme Court would rule on this law. As long as the law is fair for all parties, I don't know how they could rule it unconstitutional but I bet they would find a way if the case was filed. The Sept. 1, 2005 date is after the last presidential election so it would be interesting.
Reply -
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
83%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/08/27/democrats-republicans-miss-texas-deadline-to-certify-presidential-nominees/
Reply
In 1988, the Democratic and Republican Parties missed a similar Indiana deadline. Lenora Fulani sued the State Election Board to force the Board to enforce the deadline. The 7th circuit ruled that Fulani did have standing to file such a lawsuit. Fulani v Hogsett, 917 F 2d 1028 (1990). However, the 7th circuit also said that Fulani waited too long to file her lawsuit. The implication is that if she had filed the lawsuit promptly, it would have been successful; or, more likely, the Indiana deadline for the major parties to certify their nominees might have been held unconstitutional.
Apparently so.
-
-
-
80%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks.
Reply
I've just been over-educated in my little rural town, I suppose. Alot of attention is paid to the public school system around here. Our state treasurer had enough trust in it to have her son attend the same high school I did. She ran for Governor this year but lost the primary, oh well, Nixon was going to win the race anyway after the Republicans did so horribly at a state level.
I must confess, I found this article while reading a comment on another website that mentioned this story, thus I Googled it and came up with this. I'm not paying close enough attention to minor legal details to come across this sort of stuff in a more usual way!
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
-
67%
cowboygrandpa1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mdiar:
Reply
Good find and interesting.
Of course we know that GW's home state will allow the good ol' boy McCain on the ballot.
So they will have to reluctantly allow Obama.
I will be interested in the effect this has on future conventions dates. Then still the Republicans may have to delay their convention if the Hurricane that is brewing strikes that region of the country.
Almost seems like poetic justice in that Bush waited to help New Orleans, now the party he was trumpeted by may have its' convention delayed by the very thing that showed his incompetance on domestic matters as well as foreign matters.
If his nomination is held up another week would that be an omen to the nation? LOL-
67%
Mdiar1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They have no choice but to get him on. If McCain isn't on the ballot, McCain loses the election. The best he can hope for is that he doesn't let Obama get to 270 votes either, at which point Congress determines the winner of the top 3 electoral vote getters. Which would then be Sen. Obama as his party controls Congress.
Reply
Ultimately, the Republicans will particularly fight to get on and the Democratic Party will just piggy-back on and use the precedent- whatever it may be- of the Republicans to get on the ballot.
-
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
helloworldbeaComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Assuming Obama can't get Texas's electoral votes anyway, it would be to his advantage to work to disqualify all of texas from voting.
Reply
Of course, it would be wrong; and hundreds of texans would feel defrauded, but it would be tempting.
But wrong.
Excelent post, Mdiar!
LUVMYCRYMTYPHONS %0
1 minute ago
this is well said, Crymtyphon!
but complicated. You sure are smart! -
-
100%
lloydm651 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would love to see a credible third party candidate in america,but good grief Charley brown,not Barr.He is without question a gad fly.He thought he could make points by joining up with the democrat impeachment crowd,that went over like a fart in church.I know people who swear they are going to write Hillary on their ballot, I think its silly we have our two candidates,its a little late for buyer's remorse.
Reply -
Neutral
LightofReason1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First since its the party electors the people of a state vote for, a court would reasonably hold that the filing of a list of electors would satisfy the law. This is likely what was filed though unofficially both parties nominations were determined by the deadline. It quite odd in that both parties planned late conventions when neither was dealing with an incumbent rerunning. The fact LBJ decided to retire in 1968, placed Humphrey at a disadvantage timewise. Course HHH could have avoided that by breaking with LBJ on Nam earlier. Those precious wasted weeks likely put Nixon in the WH. What a better place America would be without Nixon's godawful SCOTUS appointee: Rehnquist. Unfortunately, Scalia and Thomas and now Roberts and Alito make Rehnquist look good.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.